A 540-calorie Big Mac? NY chains post calorie info - Page 3

gunner · 07-20-08, 05:26 PM

[quote][quote][quote=mikhail;1057674393]

Quote:

A company like mcdonalds doesent need defending but people have the right to make bad or good choices.The mcdonalds in the UK do have the list of whats what already i dont think it makes much difference.

you mean that small chart hid away in the corner of the restaurant

Quote:

Im not fat myself but people who are have made the choice to be so its hard for some people we arent naturally developed to have all this food around us. we naturallly have the mindset that food is scarce and we should eat alot while we can.

Do you not feel the human race have moved on somewhat from prehistoric times?

Quote:

If you let the logical part of the brain overide this instinct you will lose weight so maybe it is worth counting calaries if you are the sort of person to over induldge.Unfortunitly i dont think people will.

A small amount of "educating" can go a long way.

Quote:

People often say "im going on a diet" but you dont go on a diet you have a diet so if you change your diet it has to change forever i think people have this idea of putting themselves through a 2 month journey and then they can go back to their old diet

.

True. It needs to be a life style change not part of some fad regime.

Paul.

obvious Child · 07-22-08, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

I think it makes sense to require restaurants to post the calorie count of their food...at least the larger ones. If it works, then maybe New York could expand it to ALL restaurants. I think consumers should have the right to know what they're buying.

God forbid adding more relevant information to the market allowing consumers in a free market to leverage such information to make good decisions.

Trinity · 07-22-08, 02:32 PM

On Franchising - WSJ.com

Exiling the Happy Meal

Quote:

Los Angeles Lawmakers Want to Escalate
The War on Obesity (And Fast Food)

Despite its health-crazy reputation, parts of Los Angeles are plagued by obesity rates that rival any city in America. Now, the city may join a growing roster of local governments aiming to put their residents on diets by cracking down on the fast-food industry.
In an effort to fight obesity, Los Angeles is proposing to ban fast food restaurants in one neighborhood, tapping into a tougher attitude toward fast food.

Jan Perry, a Los Angeles city-council member, is spearheading legislation that would ban new fast-food restaurants like McDonald's and KFC from opening in a 32-square-mile chunk of the city, including her district. The targeted area is already home to some 400 fast-food restaurants, she says, possibly contributing to high obesity rates there -- 30% of adults, compared with about 21% in the rest of the city. Nationally, 25.6% of adults are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While some cities have bans on new fast-food establishments, they typically are for aesthetic reasons or to protect local businesses. Ms. Perry's initiative seems to be a rare instance in which a major city brings health issues into restaurant zoning. The fast-food ban would last a year, although Ms. Perry hopes to make it permanent. On Tuesday, a committee will make a recommendation on the measure before sending it on to the full city council for a vote.

With the ordinance, Los Angeles is tapping into a tougher attitude toward fast food that is emerging at city halls around the country. Cities have begun banning ingredients, regulating menu information and now dictating whether restaurants are healthy enough to open in their communities. Advocates say the measures are crucial in the fight against obesity, diabetes and other diseases and health conditions. Foes say the rules go too far, violating important freedoms.

"It's very much the example of a nanny state," says Alan Hoffenblum, a Republican lobbyist in Los Angeles.

The restaurant industry says the measures place too much blame at its door.

"We have a fundamental problem with government stepping in and treating restaurants as if they are engaged in activity that is at the root of the obesity epidemic," says Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Association. He blames the epidemic on a web of factors, including sedentary lifestyles and lack of nutrition education.

While most local legislation applies to chain restaurants, typically defined as restaurants with more than 10 or 15 branches in the area or state, the ordinance in Los Angeles specifically targets fast food. It defines fast food as having characteristics including "a limited menu" and "food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

In New York City, a law kicked in earlier this year requiring fast-food restaurants to post calorie counts on the main menu right above the counter. San Francisco plans to implement a similar regulation later this year. In both cities, the restaurant industry is suing to try to block the calorie-disclosure rules; in New York, appeals-court judges allowed the city to proceed with the program while they consider the case.

The calorie-posting rules come on the heels of a ban on coronary-clogging artificial transfats, or fats with added hydrogen, in New York City restaurants. Many chains have already removed transfats from their kitchens. Now, copycat legislation is popping up around the country. A ban in Boston goes into effect in September; in Baltimore, a ban takes effect next year. California legislators have sent a bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would remove transfats from restaurants and bakeries statewide.

Government officials say they must attack all causes of obesity. In New York, city officials have said the new information on menus will save people from obesity and diabetes. The ordinance pending in Los Angeles appears particularly tough, because it would halt the opening of any fast-food restaurant in a large part of the city. But it might not be the last such measure. The Los Angeles planning department says it has had calls from several cities asking for copies of the pending ordinance. Already, "the influence is there," says Faisal Roble, the city planner who drafted the ordinance.

Many area residents say they support the ban -- even those who patronize the restaurants regularly. "It's a good idea," particularly for children, says Rafael Escobar, 69 years old, as he bites into a McDonald's sausage breakfast burrito. He thinks the move might encourage other types of food businesses to come into the neighborhood.

"There's not that many alternatives," says Hector Rodriguez, a bus driver toting a bag from the Del Taco chain of Mexican fast-food restaurants. He says he frequently stops along the strip of fast-food restaurants lining Figueroa Boulevard to pick up a snack or lunch. "If there were other choices, like a salad place or a supermarket, it would be better," he says.

More updating on calorie posting and now banning of fast-food.

How do u feel about them banning fast-food? Is it overboard? Is this fair to fast-food companies like McDonald's and KFC? What do u think shd be done?

Kernel Sanders · 07-22-08, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

More updating on calorie posting and now banning of fast-food.

How do u feel about them banning fast-food? Is it overboard? Is this fair to fast-food companies like McDonald's and KFC? What do u think shd be done?

Completely out of line. Make the restaurants disclose what food includes horrible, deadly trans fat. Educate me in school about the terrible things that will happen to me if I eat horrible, deadly trans fat. Hell, give subsidies and tax breaks to restaurants that don't serve food with horrible, deadly trans fat. But if I want a burger loaded with trans fat, don't you dare tell me I can't have it.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-22-08, 03:21 PM

I don't do chains or fast food.

However in thier defense do you all think that bacon double cheeseburger at your local pub is any less?

One would have to be a fool to need this stupid law in place.

Ikari · 07-22-08, 03:42 PM

I don't know what you people are complaining about. Obviously the government knows better than us how we should live our lives and we should just accept their benevolence. They are trying to keep us healthy, are you saying healthy is wrong!? In this day and age of keeping us safe from other threats like nasty ol' drugs and terrorists, why shouldn't the government also act to keep us safe from ourselves? It's only logical, I mean the government is here to protect us and look after us and do all our thinking for us. Could you imagine a world where the government wasn't always right there, looking over our shoulders, keeping us safe from all sorts of nasties out there that are looking to get us! Why it would be downright barbaric! People thinking for themselves, having to accept the consequences of their own actions....the nerve of some of you! You all should just quit trying to rally against the government and accept its divine intervention into our daily lives in an effort to keep us all safe, healthy, and happy happy.

Now....where is my Soma?

SixStringHero · 07-22-08, 04:02 PM

Slight tangent, but I'm actually trying to put on a few pounds. I'm about 6'0 and I used to weigh in at the 195-200 range. Even by BMI standards I was considered a little overweight but I felt more healthy at that weight range.

I don't know if it's because I cut back on beer drinking and that it took me 3 weeks to get over a cold or nasal infection, but I basically lost a whole waist size and now can't seem to get much above 185 lbs. I find this odd, and I am now eating high callorie/protein content foods and drinks such as yogurt, ENSURE, peanut butter etc.

I just read that we are supposed to consume about 2500 callories a day, and I cannot imagine eating that much food. Even with my high callorie diet I'm working on, I can't fathom consuming that much. It's a wonder to me that anyone can become overweight at that rate.

Maybe this burger would be a good diet change for me...

obvious Child · 07-22-08, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

One would have to be a fool to need this stupid law in place.

Which describes most Americans. I previously posted a link about surveys of people eating at Subway on their estimates of the calories in their subway sandwiches. Most of them didn't come close, usually underestimating the amounts by significant margins. If we can't even estimate subway sandwiches correctly, we're a sorry lot of fools.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-22-08, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Which describes most Americans.

Maybe in your circles my friend. My friends, and family knows if you eat to much you get fat.

Quote:

I previously posted a link about surveys of people eating at Subway on their estimates of the calories in their subway sandwiches. Most of them didn't come close, usually underestimating the amounts by significant margins. If we can't even estimate subway sandwiches correctly, we're a sorry lot of fools.

And you think that posting the calories is going to do what exactly for them? Think they are going to read it?

obvious Child · 07-22-08, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Maybe in your circles my friend. My friends, and family knows if you eat to much you get fat.

Define "eat too much." If you drink an extra can of soda a day, or even just a few a week, you'll add significant pounds over a year. That's not "too much." Three cans of soda a week.

Quote:

And you think that posting the calories is going to do what exactly for them? Think they are going to read it?

If it's next to the price yes. Heaven forbid giving consumers more relevant information to make better decisions in a free market.